Sobering Numbers: 52% Wouldn't Consider Voting for HRC

[ludwigb]

http://www.contracostatimes.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=6260144&siteId=571

To be fair, she also has higher favorability than Obama (39 to 36) in the same poll. But the negatives seem pretty darn damning to me.... I mean, these numbers are not illusions. They have been built up by a relentless campaign over 16 years to portray HRC as power-hungry and unscrupulous.

Face it dems, HILLARY IS A REPUBLICAN'S WET DREAM!!! That's one of the reasons Fox News has been building up the notion of a Hillary run for the past 8 years. They aren't stupid when it comes to tactics.

[More Than A Feeling]

1. At least she doesn't reinforce Republican memes like Bill Richardson.

[Stop Cornyn]

3. That's awfully faint praise.

[More Than A Feeling]

7. I'm not a Hillary-supporter.

It's the praise she has earned from me.

[blm]

33. June 2006: ADAMANTLY against ANY timetable for Iraq as bad policy (WH talking point)

Uses 9-11 as excuse for Iraq.

And, of course, this video favorite from Oct2006:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[IndyOp]

36. And won't take pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran off the table...

Hence my sigline pic:

[More Than A Feeling]

44. Good point. n/t

[blm]

46. No problem - sometimes there are trees that get in the way of the forest.

But when you really walk back and take it all in, the whole picture has alot to say.

[truebrit71]

2. ..and yet you tell that to the HRC-istas that patrol these boards looking for their next target...

...of derision and hatred, and you'll be told you're nuts...

Like I have said all along, if you want a republican in the WH in 09, get HRC the Dem nomination...

If you want a Dem in the WH, get ANYBODY else...

[still_one]

6. That is not quite accurate either. Kucinich, Grovel, and Biden could NOT win

If HRC gets the nomination it will be extremely close, and that is unfortunate, because after what the republicans have put the country through the last six years, there is no excuse for that

[ClassWarfare2008]

41. If we had a fair media in this country

A Kucinich/Gravel ticket (why NOT both?) would win in a landslide that Reagan and Nixon's corpses would both envy.

Unfortunately, they'll insure that fear of imaginary terraists remains the number one talking point in campaign coverage.

[still_one]

4. The Democrats have no excuse NOT to win in 2008, so do we put up the strongest candidate?

Not in my view.

I really wish Gore would run, but I don't see it happening

[AndyTiedye]

30. We Have to Persuade The Strongest Candidate TO RUN!

Our one and only viable candidate isn't running yet.
We have to persuade him to do so.

GORE 2008
WE NEED YOU!

[flpoljunkie]

5. 60% of Independents, 56% of men, 47% of women, 88% of Republicans won't vote for Hillary

Thursday's survey provides a snapshot of the challenges she faces, according to Larry Harris, a Mason-Dixon principal.

"Hillary's carrying a lot of baggage," he said. "She's the only one that has a majority who say they can't vote for her."

Clinton rang up high negatives across the board, with 60 percent of independents, 56 percent of men, 47 percent of women and 88 percent of Republicans saying they wouldn't consider voting for her.

http://www.contracostatimes.com/portlet/article/html/fragments/print_article.jsp?articleId=6260144&siteId=571

[Warpy]

8. In past elections, we could have counted upon 50% of that 52%

to talk big and not bother voting. I'm afraid they'll all be voting in this one.

Clinton has a lot of negatives on her side, some deserved, most not. She has a serious perception problem out there in Middle America, and those are the folks who are going to decide the election.

[BearSquirrel2]

22. Republicans invest big $$$ demnoizing Hillary ...

The Republicans invested serious $$$ demonizing Hillary Clinton in the 90s. If she wins the nomination, they'll get some unexpected windfalls.

The irony of Hillary is that liberals don't like her because she isn't liberal. Conservatives don't like her because they've been told that she is liberal. Likely she'll be crowned the new "most liberal Senator" in America superceding John Kerry.

The Democrats have to run to their base because they'll NEVER get right leaners to vote for them. For that matter, there are more people living in the north and we really don't NEED the south. We can elect presidents on our own so long as we appeal to people's needs.

[terisan]

9. About same number state they wouldn't vote for Romney...so let's hope Romney runs.

[pnwmom]

10. And yet the polls have her BEATING all the Republicans in head to head races.

Which means that the only thing worse than Hillary, in some people's opinion, is ANY Republican.

[SaveElmer]

11. Already three threads on this very topic...on page one...

I understand dupes when things have sunk a bit, but scrolling down the page would have shown you that there are several threads on this exact topic already...

[PBass]

13. The good ol' 'non-electability' meme...

Isnt that why we got Kerry in 2004, and not Dean (Dean's not electable!)

Tons of people loved Bill Clinton (68% approval rating, no?) And tons of people love Hillary.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

14. There is a concerted effort to attack HRC's electability...

...without comparing her electability with that of other candidates. That would be fruitful--of course that would destroy the purpose of the campaign. The thinking of most of these people is this is a two-way race and by "proving" HRC is unelectable by default support will transfer from her to their candidate.

HRC has problems--so do the other candidates. One candidate loses California, New York, and even Massachusetts to Ghouliani. That candidate is not HRC...

[illinoisprogressive]

12. We have a serious problem with these numbers. most people do not want to vote for her

but, with the constant cheerleading by the msm for her and ignoring problems her candidacy poses, it could be a very unhappy 2008.
Without pro and cons of her being presented to the mainstream people who don't go to blogs, we could have a big problem on our hands and I don't know how we solve it.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

15. Yes, and a candidate flipping CA, NY, and even Mass. to the repukes is also a big problem

Too bad the CMSM is cheerleading for that candidate as well.

[wyldwolf]

16. fortunately we don't elect presidents by popular vote

Polls are also showing Clinton flipping at least three red states and hold all the states Kerry did.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

17. Does she lose California and even Massachussetts to Ghouliani? nt

[wyldwolf]

18. nope.

She holds every state Kerry won, and adds at least three. Based on the way we elect presidents, she wins - according to the polls - no matter how many don't like her.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

19. So in your opinion does that make her more electable than a candidate who does lose those states? nt

[wyldwolf]

20. If a Democrat loses CA and Mass., he is certainly less electable.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

24. Have you ever seen those who say HRC is unelectable explain how we win without CA, NY, Mass, etc.?

The fleet of supporters of this candidate post several threads on electability each day. Surely, given their alleged concern about the matter, they have thought about how we can win despite losing CA, NY, Massachusetts and several other states in between.

[Awsi Dooger]

47. Stop mentioning that crap about losing CA, NY, Mass

It's ludicrous. None of our candidates will lose any of those states. That's why I've emphasized repeatedly for years to ignore state polling in favor of national polling. State polling is considerably less reliable and spits out laughable numbers and therefore faulty conclusions. Lousy state polling was the reason Gore gave up prematurely on Ohio in 2000.

Stick with a consensus of national polling, combined with how the individual states historically fall in line with the national percentage, and that's the best measure of how each candidate stands.

The one exception is admittedly Giuliani, who has slightly more strength in some states than the typical Republican. He would make New York competitive but lose by single digits. No Republican would threaten to win California or Massachusetts.

[BearSquirrel2]

23. Faux hasn't started in on her yet ...

Faux has been going soft on her. Hell, Rupert Murdoch even held a fundraiser for her. After a nomination, Faux will rip into her flesh. We'll here all about how many people she murdered once again. We'll be told all about the loveless Clinton marriage of convenience. They'll even rehash the old tale about Hillary's people trashing the White House after Bill Clinton left office.

If Hillary wins the nomination. We lose. Heck, if Hillary wins the White House ... I still think we lose because she's a right leaning moderate.

[wyldwolf]

25. The Clinton machine is still in first gear.

[SaveElmer]

27. Which ought to be pretty frightening to the other campaigns...nt

[blm]

38. Why did they never get INTO GEAR and fight Bush the last 7years?

I mean, how are we to know for SURE that Hillary's machine can work against Republicans when they were too afraid to go after Bush's machine the last 7 years?

We've only seen them used against other Democrats the last 4 years.

[wyldwolf]

39. If only Kerry had fought back we wouldn't be in this mess!

If only Kerry wasn't such a quitter.
The whole world is changing because he refused to fight.

Kerry made so many bad decisions I couldn't pick out the ten worst.
But it costs NOTHING to fire off a fax to the whore AP, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC etc.

That's what Clinton did right in 92 and 96.
Everytime the GOP slime machine made an outrageous accusation,
Clinton's War Room fired off a fax correcting them and showing how
the Republicans were actually guilty of the charges they fabricated against Clinton.

It works every time - if the truth is on your side.

Funny how Kerry forgot that.

Well, maybe funny ain't the right word.

[blm]

42. 92 and 96. Telecommunications Act in 97 changed the playing field and 9-11

let the INCREASINGLY fascist media come out in the open.

So - why didn't the Clinton team get into gear and OPPOSE BUSH in 2001? 2002? 2003? 2004? 2005?

Too busy undermining other Democrats, eh?


Enemy within?



This talk by historian Douglas Brinkley occurred in April 2004:



http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354



Whom does the biographer think his subject will pick as a running mate? Not Hillary Rodham Clinton. "There's really two different Democratic parties right now: there's the Clintons and Terry McAuliffe and the DNC and then there's the Kerry upstarts. John Kerry had one of the great advantages in life by being considered to get the nomination in December. He watched every Democrat in the country flee from him, and the Clintons really stick the knife in his back a bunch of times, so he's able to really see who was loyal to him and who wasn't. That's a very useful thing in life."


Here's Clinton helpfully defending Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq in June 2004.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/


Clinton defends successor's push for war
Says Bush 'couldn't responsibly ignore' chance Iraq had WMDs


(CNN) -- Former President Clinton has revealed that he continues to support President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq but chastised the administration over the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison.

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

Noting that Bush had to be "reeling" in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Clinton said Bush's first priority was to keep al Qaeda and other terrorist networks from obtaining "chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material."

"That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.




http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward




Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)

By M.J. Rosenberg |

I just came across a troubling incident that Bob Woodward reports in his new book. Very troubling.
On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

So what happened?

James Carville gets on the phone with his wife, Mary Matalin, who is at the White House with Bush.

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

"Matalin went to Cheney to report...You better tell the President Cheney told her."

Matalin does, advising Bush that "somebody in authority needed to get in touch with J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State in Ohio who would be in charge of any challenge to the provisional votes." An SOS goes out to Blackwell.
>>>>>>>>





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg





Wonder why?



http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[wyldwolf]

43. If only Kerry had fought back we wouldn't be in this mess!

If only Kerry wasn't such a quitter.
The whole world is changing because he refused to fight.

Kerry made so many bad decisions I couldn't pick out the ten worst.
But it costs NOTHING to fire off a fax to the whore AP, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC etc.

That's what Clinton did right in 92 and 96.
Everytime the GOP slime machine made an outrageous accusation,
Clinton's War Room fired off a fax correcting them and showing how
the Republicans were actually guilty of the charges they fabricated against Clinton.

It works every time - if the truth is on your side.

Funny how Kerry forgot that.

Well, maybe funny ain't the right word.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. The right-wing has been attacking her for years

It is Obama who, aside form Tucker and one Faux story, has enjoyed the right-wing holding their fire on him. If he is this weak now, how weak will he be when the Obama brand gets damaged? He is essentially pristine right now and not a GE juggernaut. He will only get weaker...

[AndyTiedye]

29. The Reich Wing Media Declared a Cease-Fire on HRC Until After The Democratic Convention

After which it will be open season, of course.

[wyldwolf]

35. How would you know that?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. She wins easily in the electoral college (I just saw your edit)

As does Edwards (by a larger margin ;) ). We do, though, have one candidate who apparently would lead us to electoral college defeat...

[rinsd]

31. Unfavorable Hillary beats favorable Rudy & Fred head to head in national heats (nt)

[BenDavid]

21. I will take that. All these folks

have heard is the negative comments from the right and the negative reporting from cnn, nbc, abc etc etc....Plus all the hatred here in this forum. Hell, if I did not know anuthing about HRC, I would just by the comments made would have doubts myself but I am not a fickle person that lets someone tell me what to believe.....And I guess that Obama with this silly ass comment,"The only person who is probably prepared to be President on day one is Bill, not Hillary. I think we’re all very qualified for the job." uh huh you go Obama....And I guess, Obama, who seems to be saying her 8 years in the White House and 8 in the senate are equal to his 4 years in the senate. Plus this comment by Obama that Hillary’s husband is ready and the implication that she isn’t seems sexist to me.
We are going to find out in this election just who the racist and sexist are in this country....
I do thank you
Ben David

[ShortnFiery]

32. That's not a surprise.

I'm also a member - along with everyone I've met who falls into that 52%. :shrug:

[usregimechange]

34. She could win five states, at least.

[Alamom]

37. 625

The Mason-Dixon survey was conducted June 23-25 with 625 likely general-election voters. It has an error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

[mckeown1128]

40. It is scary to think that a dedicated portion of our party...

is determined to pick an unelectable GE candidate.

[snowbear]

45. But that's only if you buy the MSM polling...

...which most here would agree are based on name-recognition more than anything else at this time in the primaries.

I'd guess that so far, out of every poll that's been released--- the one that has the most accurate response of how DEMOCRATS feel, is the one conducted after the recent "Take Bake America" convention.

At least we know that the 720 people in attendance were actual DEMOCRATS -- and not someone on a phone line responding by name-recognition, or (like some Republicans I know) are selecting the candidate with the highest unelectability rating just so they can skew the numbers.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0607/4573.html